3.8 Article

Open-pore film drainage (OFD): a new multipurpose tool for endoscopic negative pressure therapy (ENPT)

期刊

ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 E865-E871

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-0599-5886

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and study aims Endoscopic negative pressure therapy (ENPT) has been developed to treat gastrointestinal leakages. Up to now, ENPT has usually been performed with open-pore polyurethane foam drains (OPD). A big disadvantage of the OPDs is their large diameter. We have developed a new, small-bore open-pore film drainage (OFD). Herein we report our first experience in a case series of 16 patients. Patients and methods OFD is constructed with a drainage tube and a very thin double-layered open-pore drainage film (Suprasorb CNP, Drainage Film, Lohmann & Rauscher International, Germany). The distal end of the tube is wrapped with only one layer of film. OFD is placed into the gastrointestinal leakage site with common endoscopic techniques. The tube is connected to an electronic vacuum device and continuous negative pressure of - 125mmHg applied. Results From 2013 to 2016, 16 patients were treated with the new OFD device. In 10 patients, transmural intestinal defects (4 esophageal, 4 rectum/colon, 1 duodenal, 1 pancreatic cyst) were closed with ENPT in median time of 12 days (range 3-34 days). Five of the 10 patients were treated solely with OFD devices. In five patients ENPT started with ODP and changed to OFD when the cavity was shrunken to a channel with a small opening. In four patients post-operative gastric reflux was eliminated for 5 to 16 days. Conclusions Small-bore OFD opens up promising new treatment options within ENPT. OFD can be used in endoscopic closure management of intestinal leakages in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Gastric reflux can be eliminated in an active manner. OFD can be inserted nasally. OFD may be an adequate substitute for OPD, especially when placement of the larger OPD is difficult.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据